Friday, June 21, 2013

Hubris as the basis of the PUA scam

My wife recently skimmed my blog and remarked that I surely have a lot of bad things to say about women, and that I let men off easy. She pointed out that there were plenty of "fat, short, and ugly men hitting on young girls in clubs who consider themselves to be God's gift to women". She had a point, and as I thought more about this scenario, it dawned on me that without male hubris, in particular the failure to see yourself realistically, the whole PUA scam never would have gotten off the ground.

Let's first contrast hubris as it's present in both genders. Women may think that there is the proverbial knight in shining armor that will save them from their misery and accept them because they've got such fabulous personalities, even if they are physically unattractive and actually have rather obnoxious personalities. Not wanting to face reality, they keep pining after attractive guys, or fuck some average dudes, but it's all just to keep them busy until their own personal version of Mr Big steps into their lives. This normally doesn't quite work out so well, and the well-known result is that those women end up being rather desperate 30 year-olds or, in the worst case, single moms who no guy with options would go near.

But just as women delude themselves, so are there plenty of guys around who neglect the importance of looks, money, status. Before discovering PUA, they hoped that somehow some fabulous chick would accidentally end up riding their cock, and so they roamed bars and clubs just to ogle chicks, and also hit on any woman they meet through work, no matter how far out of their reach she may be. You know, maybe they'll get lucky by chance.

However, the only way to increase the odds, as I've stressed over and over, is to fix your fundamentals, and put yourself in a position that makes it easy for you to meet women who might be interested in you. I've fleshed this out in great detail in Minimal Game. Yet, this "method" requires two things that are rather unappealing if someone is lazy, feels entitled, and is unwilling to leave his comfort zone:

  • taking stock of your assets (good and bad)
  • getting your life in order

Superficially, the alternative is much more appealing. Instead of working hard to improve your lot in life, you could just believe in fairy tales. This is where PUA came in. It's easy to tell a guy with such a predisposition that looks, status, and money don't matter, and that with a few magic tricks and elaborate "routines" he'll get the hottest chicks. It takes an effort to work on yourself. On the other hand, memorizing some bullshit stories amounts only to a minor sacrifice, and is certainly easier than, say, losing 20 pounds. The PUA recipe didn't work out so well, and thus the PUA scene has been in death throes for years.

While PUA is nowadays pretty much dead, entitled and unattractive men still abound. Looking for a new savior, they turned away from Mystery and David DeAngelo, only to worship at the altar of Roosh V. Roosh's message is simple: "It's not your fault that you can't get hot chicks because in the Western world, hot chicks don't exist anymore. The Third world is where it's at instead!" On a side note, I find it humorous to compare PUA and the manosphere with regard to the frequency of hot chicks. While every third sentence out of the mouth of a PUA drone contained the words "hot chicks", as if nine out of ten girls where highly attractive, the manosphere takes the opposite stance and feverishly talks about "fat bitches", as if nine out of ten women in the Western world were morbidly obese or, in general, the embodiment of every white trash stereotype.

But let's get back to the manosphere: again, they don't tell guys to get their f*cking act together. Instead, the message is that they are okay. They are okay, but the Western world is to blame for their misfortunes. All they have to do is find a "pussy paradise" somewhere in the Russian hinterlands where all the women will just jump on their cock because they are, um, white guys who couldn't score in their home countries. Seriously, how retarded can one be?

The core group of guys who were exploited by, first, the PUAs, and later the manosphere are simply people who never learnt to challenge themselves. The dating market is competitive, and "just being you" normally won't cut it. The two most reasonable outcomes are to either settle for what you can reasonably expect. This is not necessarily an attractive option. The other one is to work hard on improving yourself, so that you'll get a shot with girls who may be out of your reach right now. However, this option is quite unattractive for everyone with an unjustified sense of entitlement. "Hey, weren't we supposed to get hot chicks just like that?", they are thinking, and calculate how long it would take to save up money for another flight to Thailand.

There are guys who don't want to work on themselves, and their entitlement can show in many ways. One way is indeed the "short, fat, and ugly" guy who hits on some hot young girl in the club. But there are also those who think that the Western world is to blame for their lack of success with girls. They all fail to acknowledge that some girls are, objectively, just out of their reach. Getting in shape is one option to fix this, another one is hitting on another ten girls on the weekend and getting nowhere, or to organize trips to Russia or the Dominican Republic with other guys they've never met. Somewhere, somehow, they've got to find their princess who just takes them for who they are...

What's your opinion? Let me know in the comments below!


  1. I think reading "The Prince" along with some history book about the age the "Prince" was written in would be really helpful for a lot of guys, in order to get a realistic outlook on life in general. Of cource, it would also make sense to read "On thinking for oneself" by Schopenhauer first.

    1. Both texts are well worth reading. "The Prince" has to be taken with a grain of salt, though, and there is reason to believe that the book was supposed to be ironic. Yet, there are people like "the prince" out there, and knowing of that fact alone, and of how such sociopaths act should help guys overcoming some of their naivety.

      Schopenhauer is a fabulous thinker, and among the many dead white men whose works I've studied, he's arguably been the most influential on my life. The essay you mention might serve as a great starting point to discovering his oeuvre. I'll add a link to it later on since many would benefit from reading it.

  2. Western culture encourages gigantic egos in both men and women. It's a big problem and creates lots of unhappiness, but it's hard to realize this until you spend lots of time in a culture that emphasizes modesty, which is a truly gracious and appealing quality, in both men and women. PUA advice likes to pretend that it is countercultural, but it merely emphasizes to a monstrous degree the mainstream cultural promotion of ego. It takes an existent unhealthy cultural tendency and makes it even more monstrous - is it any surprise that this leads to failure and unhappiness?

    Lots of guys don't even want to do the minimum of developing fashion sense - it goes against the message of being who you are, very big in the West. Being who you truly are is good, but what this has come to mean in the West is being who you are without making any effort to actualize yourself. In practice, this often means simply doing what you have always done, even if you have always been too afraid to truly be who you are.

    Most men can't get lots of money, or develop a good fashion sense, and just will never be in the league of hot girls. So it's not that they don't want to work on themselves. It won't make a difference.

    If we lived in a mature culture, people would be encouraged to be modest and have realistic expectations, and everyone would be happier. This means most guys would settle, or stop going out to clubs. The few who could really benefit from improving themselves would do so without fanfare. But we live in a childish culture that promotes having a gigantic ego and reaching for the stars, however unrealistically, as the path to happiness.

    1. Amen to that. I completely agree that the overarching message nowadays to the average person is "you're okay". You see this in education early on when everybody is declare a winner and gets a gold star for attendance or something like that. Of course, this only fosters a culture of complacency. Even worse is that in many areas success is framed as a chance event, and it often can be interpreted like that. Just think of phrases like "startup lottery". In that field, financial success can indeed come over night, almost like divine intervention. Just think of the one billion dollars Instagram was sold for. This narrative is quite possibly as damaging to guys as telling girls of models who were "discovered" when they were shopping for groceries in London or whatnot.

  3. You're missing the critical point of the whole manosphere/game issue, which is that there are plenty of guys with the "fundamentals" down (meaning they earn a decent middle class wage, are at least in average shape, and are psychologically more or less normal) that still aren't getting laid. "Fundamentals" just aren't enough, you also need to have a certain attitude about it, and most of the time also a certain tact that most guys don't have. That what the whole "game" thing turns on.

    Obviously a lot of it is bullshit. The whole idea that just acting like a boss is going to make you one is absurd, although it can work in the very short run. And a lot of guys just doing routines or putting on a Roissy-style air of impermeability are just acting and become caricatures. But there are some important lessons in "game", chiefly that "fundamentals" are not enough, you have to have a certain attitude to go with it, and for a lot of guys that's news, helpful news.

    1. Great comment. That is in fact the flipside.

      The said truth is that while game is "95% a scam", the sadder part is that there is some truth to there being a skill to getting women - unfortunately.

      It'd be great if becoming better people automatically got us women, but unfortunately, on this planet, due to female laziness, it does not. You can literally become a 300% better person in every way, but see not even a single percent increase in your dating life.

      You can spend years building yourself up, building a great life, building a killer physique, building nice finances, only to see uglier, fatter, unhygienic guys getting 10 times more women than you (in most cases they're just playing the numbers harder than you, but still).

      The scam part of scam is that they imply you can say or do things to flip an "on" switch in women who had no attraction in you, and that part is the scammy part.

      The part that isn't a scam, and is unfortunately true is that women do overvalue dating skills (knowing when and how to approach, knowing how to read signals, knowing when and how to make what move etc). So an objectively less attractive guy (all around lesser man, not just looks) can get more, just by reading signals better than you and timing his moves better... unfortunately. Again, I blame female dating laziness.

      The only way to get lots of hot women if you're not a celebrity is to play the numbers game. And there are two ways to play the numbers game:

      A) Hit on 30* hot chicks, have 29 reject you, so the 30th says yes
      B) Become a master at knowing how to flirt, socialize and make allow women show interest first, with you just knowing when to make what moves when

      In both cases you get one out of 30* women, it's just that in case A you make the 29 explicitly reject you to get to the 30th one. Whereas in case B, you find out who "chick 30" is without having to face rejection

      ... end part 1

    2. part 2...

      *-30 is a random example number, your ratio will vary on how attractive you are, shape, genetically, your status in the context you meet these women etc etc...

      Now, most PUAs apply strategy A, they just invent fancy ways (methods) of masking the rejection.

      Tyler Dyrden even openly tells guys now he only gets one out of 30 chicks he approaches (that's after 10 years of doing this professionally). He even mocks the idea that this is a "numbers game". Apparently his newest explanation is that the 29 chicks are just a "warm up" and he's warming up his mood, and it's really his heightened "mood" that makes chick 30 sleep with him. I wish I was making this up... I'm not...

      Go to 13 minutes, 55 seconds
      On Youtube Video "The Game Is FUN AS HELL!! Small Chunk Your Way Out Of Your Head And Into A Wild Night!"

      So yeah... Funny, how is that most of us anti-puas can get these same results without "mood"? And without any of the 50DVD crappola?

      Heck, you can get those lay ratios or better just by asking these same club women if they wanna bang right from hello.

      You'd get the same ratio of makeouts this doofus gets if you just walked up to the same women and said "hi, wanna make out"?

      The only major difference is that your rejection will suck harder (i.e. the 29 will be more glaring). This is the scam of game. You still don't get the 29, you still only get chick nr. 30.

      *-Note, you can have a much worsened ratio by being akward and have bad "calibration" or signal-reading ability. In other words, your ratio might be as low as 1 in 60 because for example you might make some moves too soon, or wait too long, or persist too much, or not enough, things like that.

      This is how some people see improvements and misatribute it to game. A guy might go from 1 in 100 to 1 in 30 with no change in attractivness, and he assumes he's gotten game (the ability to create attraction), what he doesn't realize is he's merely gotten better calibrated on when and how to escalate. The same women are attracted, he's just screwing up less...

    3. @ Alek Novy

      "...The scam part of scam is that they imply you can say or do things to flip an "on" switch in women who had no attraction in you, and that part is the scammy part...

      Alek, what you seem to not understand is that women CANNOT reject a man they do not know.

      They also CANNOT be attracted to a man they do not know.

      Interest and attraction are TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

      Being physically handsome will cause INTEREST however it cannot cause ATTRACTION.

      Having no interest in you DOESN'T mean she cannot be attracted to you. A woman has the POTENTIAL to be attracted to man if she got to know him...NO woman in the world has ever had attraction for a man she has NEVER SEEN OR HEARD before.

      "...It'd be great if becoming better people automatically got us women, but unfortunately, on this planet, due to female laziness, it does not..."

      It ALWAYS comes down to happens when you are TALKING to women as much as when you're actually having physical sex.

      The word INTERCOURSE means to communicate verbally. SEXUAL intercourse is SEXUAL communication.

      It is what we call flirting. It is a sub-textual language between men and INITIATE women RESPOND.

      Sex is more PSYCHOLOGICAL than it is physical. A man who always makes the first move shows SEXUAL confidence. It shows you have been around women before and are comfortable with also means you know women are women not men.

      If you have NO EXPERIENCE with women it is going to be OBVIOUS to can have EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD but if you CAN'T communicate SEXUALLY to a woman you CANNOT make her attracted to you.

      You CAN still have sex with her, but you CANNOT make her attracted to you.

      Women AREN'T lazy. They're just FEMININE. Femininity means FOLLOWING not leading. RECEIVING not giving.

      The average woman is SMALLER than most men, she is PHYSICALLY WEAKER than most men, they have the potential to get RAPED and MURDERED, they pay the GREATER PENALTY for sex ( least on a biological level). They also have LOWER levels of testosterone therefore LOWER SEX DRIVES than men and have LESS EGGS CELLS in comparison to a man's sperm.

      So it is understandable when women don't do much to initiate sexual interaction.

    4. Great post Alek. How would you advice a beginner on how to flirt and read women?

    5. Aaron, this shill is the most annoying since the existence of your blog. He's getting increasingly courageous with the shilling and marketing with every new marketing comment he posts and you don't respond to.

    6. @Anonymous

      One word = experience.

      That's all I've found. Perhaps there is a magical bullet trick or a sci-fi solution where calibration gets installed in your head... but so far the only solution I know is "do a ton of moves and you'll calibrate with experience".

      Like, if you make it a goal to attempt making out a 100 times, you'll develop the intuition to know when a woman wants to be kissed. So ironically the path toward non-rejection is paved with rejections.

      I'm sure there must be another strategy to developing reading/flirting ability, but I don't know of it.

    7. Alek,

      who is marketing what? Before approving comment, I briefly skim them, and I read them every couple of days or so. The real shilling is stuck in the moderation queue, though.

    8. eagle KJ eyes.

      He's been slowly but surely ramping up the shilling, bit by bit. He interweaves selling "game" and gynocentrism in every comment and he does it more and more and more.

      His last few comments could have well been lifted off a DeAngelo salesletter, in fact in the "sex overrated" post, another commenter called him out on his long PUA salesletter 2-part comment, saying "What a bunch of PUA wisdom..."

    9. @Alek,

      Haha I kinda expected that. I'll get to it then ;) BTW is your blog still on private? How can I read it? Where do I register? I enjoy your contributions.

    10. @Alek Novy:
      The nonsensical crap he spews is just that, nonsensical crap:
      - "Sex is sex and talking about sex is sex too? Being physically attractive makes her interested but not attracted?"
      Yeah, right.
      - "If she doesn't know you she cannot reject you?"
      No shit, Sherlock.

      Someone check if the loony bin is missing an inmate.

      Why bother with this, Alek? Chill and he'll be gone soon.

  4. With sites like return of kings and nexxt level up, aren't these guys dropping some of the hubris and accepting that disciplined work needs to be done to improve themselves?

    1. I haven't had a look at Nexxt Level Up yet, but Return of Kings didn't particularly impress me. It's basically a women's magazine for men. I just checked that site again and I saw little more than cheerleading. Funnily enough, the top post was "How Teaching English In China Can Improve Your Game".

    2. Hey Sleazy, you should check this article:

      Although I don't like their fitness advice (waaaaay too much broscience), this is legit no nonsense dating advice

  5. I wonder if other guys had the same problem I had.

    I rejected this kind of advice because I saw it as defeatist, but in time I came kicking and screaming until I finally accepted it. Started to feel more comfortable with the harshness and inequality of reality.

    I looked at older generations of people who never got into pick up nonsense who were happy, and it seems they just do not give a fuck about being unattractive or attractive girls being condescending to them.

    Problem is I still pine for girls out of my reach, still have crushes, still causes pain. It is difficult to come to terms with it and manage. It seems like reducing pining or becoming more used to them is the fastest way to happiness for me and I wonder if that is the case for other guys too.

    At the very least,

    I'm glad you and Assanova tell us sex us is not as great as its made out to be, it makes me feel like less of a loser. You should totally tell us more stuff that makes me feel like less of a loser. Improves my self esteem.


  6. Do you actually see this happening though? I know such men must exist, admittedly your wife, being a woman, has more first hand experience of this than me, but I have never observed this happening.

    From my observation, guys don't make moves nearly as much as they should. Whenever I go to a bar or club, I mean every single time, I take about twenty minutes to just sit back and observe what's going on, the number of moves actually made is vanishingly small. In fact I see good looking guys not making moves on girls who CLEARLY want them to, because it only seems clear to me who has the benefit of nothing riding on the outcome. I'd say with most guys who don't get any action, this is their problem, that they are too scared to even try.

    I can't see the idea that there are all these hideous men who think they are great. As a man, you cannot really avoid having an accurate view of your own market value, since the moment you set foot in the marketplace your standing will be beaten into you with a series of direct, personal, one to one rejections. It is only women who have the luxury of pretending they are better than they are, because they generally only ever have to deal with indirect rejection (only guys of X value or below hitting on them). I mean maybe there are guys who just figure 'roll the dice and hope to get lucky', but I think they are pretty well aware of what their real chances are, and ultimately, you ARE entitled to at least try aren't you?

    1. I agree with this. The only place this seems to be reality is on the internet.

      Only on the internet do I read that apparently hideous men are hitting on teenage supermodels left and right.

      Only on the internet do I read that women are apparently hitting on men left and right, asking them out, initiating first sex etc.

      In the real world I never see it. And I've clubbed in dozens of countries. In the average club and night you don't see ANY men dare approach ANY women, much less "50 year old fat, bold guys hitting on teenage supermodels".

    2. It's easy to caricature a statement by taking it to the extremes. Surely, there are not thousands of hideously ugly men in every club harassing the one teenage supermodel that accidentally ended up in there. Instead, the point is that there are men who hit on women who are not at all interested in them, who are clearly out of their league, and who don't take no for an answer. Ask any good-looking girl you know, and she probably experiences something like this at least semi-regularly.

      Further, if you've got the "roll the dice" mentality, then I don't think you deserve any sympathy. Guys like that actually ruin the atmosphere of clubs since it makes girls more defensive. (Yes, I've seen this happen in more mainstream clubs.) Heck, it's not uncommon that girls leave a place when the guys become too obnoxious. You, and the rest of the world, is arguably much better off if you take a look at yourself first. Just picture it the other way around: imagine there are 1000 totally average and uninteresting guys, and they are all hitting on, say, Miranda Cosgrove. Do you think she's just randomly take one of those dudes!?

    3. "Further, if you've got the "roll the dice" mentality, then I don't think you deserve any sympathy. Guys like that actually ruin the atmosphere of clubs since it makes girls more defensive."

      That's too kind to women and kind of seems like putting all the blame on men. Women (and female laziness) are far more to blame for the club situation.

      Leagues are merely statistical averages, the main determinant whether a chick will respond well isn't your league, it's whether she's interested in you individually.

      - If you're an average guy and hit on average chicks, you'll get 1 in 20.

      - If you're an average guy and hit on hot chicks, you'll get 1 in 40

      Point is, unless you're super-good at reading signals, both involve getting rejected by a ton of chicks and making moves on uninterested women. If you "stay in your league" you'll end up hitting on 19 uninterested chicks, if you shoot over your league you'll end up hitting on 39 uninterested chicks.

      And women are the ones who mostly have an attitude of "I want to be approached by the right guy, but I don't want to give out obvious signals, he should just KNOW". Because apparently being an adult woman and MERELY HOLDING A SMILE at a man across the room is too much work (or too apparent she believes, so she has to dial it down to accidentally bumping into him for 0.5 seconds when going to the bathroom) which is basic plausible deniability because women who have NO INTEREST IN YOU also accidentally bump into you when going to the bathroom!!! But apparently, you're a creep if you can't tell the difference between the 0.4 second bump and the 0.7 second bump.

      "I want him to do all the work and all the physical escalation, but I want to not let him know whether I am interested or not, and in fact I'll give mixed signals even to the guy I DO WANT to escalate me.

      This crappy dynamic is promoted by women, to where men who aren't super-calibrated (either due to super-genes or super-experience), they find they have to choose between being celibate or pushing and persisting on uninterested women (because they can't tell the difference between the average hard-to-get playing chick and the uninterested and giving subtle-no chick)

      If women wommaned the fuk up and started being more obvious in their signalling, there'd be less men hitting on uninterested women, a lot less... I primarily blame women.

      Even when I hear cases of "he wouldn't take no" for an answer, it almost never actually involved the actual word no. Its situations where women were trying to "nicely and subtly" let a man know they weren't interested, and he didn't stop trying.

      A "subtle no" is not much different than a "playing hard to get subtle plausibly deniable yes". And again, most men are not born with the super-calibration to tell them apart, so let's start blaming women more.

    4. Alek,

      I'll respond to this in a separate blog post tomorrow or in two days. But let me point out right now that the core of the problem is not so much that men have to approach while women enjoy the luxury of leaning back and waiting for their suitors to make a move (and some will wait in vain). Instead, the issue is what PUAs refer to as "plowing". Of course you have to make a move, and of course women normally send at best ambiguous signals. Once you make your approach, you get a lot of feedback, and you know whether she's appreciative of your advances or not. At this point, all the vagueness disappears as well since there is a hell of a difference between a woman who isn't interested in you at all, and one who enjoys flirting. A woman turning away is an example of the former, a woman giving you penetrating eye contact, even if she otherwise remains a bit cold, is an example of the latter. However, this is not a black and white issue.

    5. "And again, most men are not born with the super-calibration to tell them apart, so let's start blaming women more."

      This sounds pathetic, sorry. Let's assume your reasoning is right that the laziness of women is the cause of the club situation mentioned above, and I think you're right here. What's going to change if you put the blame on women? Nothing. Blaming someone for something bad that happened to you changes nothing! You have three options here: 1. Change your environment 2. Change yourself 3. Flee. Now, changing yourself is very hard, changing someone else is nearly impossible and fleeing is not an option, unless you want to go celibate. So, you have to start with yourself in order to change anything. This is actually some kind of a dilemma. You can't tolerate such behaviour, but punishment is a bad instrument to condition someone. So, what are you gonna do? You start playing tit-for-tat and man-up. This reduces the risk of being exposed by women to a minimum and conditions women in the right way. Then you go from tit-for-tat to generious tit-for-tat and restrain from using punishment a lot. If enough men do this, women are actually going to change.

    6. ''Even when I hear cases of "he wouldn't take no" for an answer, it almost never actually involved the actual word no.''

      Yeah this is also definately true. In fact, failure to persist past the certain level of resistance which is ALWAYS given is the reason I didn't start getting any until my early twenties. I think back to all these situations where I'll be trying to chat up some girl, then I'll get something from her that is one of these ''nice, stubtle'' insinuations of disinterest, at which point I immediately think ''Oh well, guess she doesn't like me, at least she was nice about it'', then later I'll hear from some mutual friend how she's all upset that it ''didn't work out'' or some such other stupid female shit.

      The point is, despite what feminists may say, no does not always mean no. You haven't really got a no until it's an unequivocal, unambigueous no, delivered with some annoyance. Any other type of no could easily just be her trying to spin out the pursuit phase of the interaction for her own amusement and validation, and if you take her at her word you WILL miss out on legitimate opportunities. If I think about how much I missed out on in this manner it makes me want to cut myself.

      If women only said no when they meant it or put up resistance when they were genuinely disinterested, 90% of this 'problem' would probably evaporate fairly quickly as guy's caught on to the new rules. As it is, the logical choice for a man is to ignore any female reistance below a certain threshold of forcefulness, and so many do. That said, it still isn't as many as the OP seems to think. I see (and hear girls complain about) the reverse much more often, where guys run away with their tails between their legs at the first hint that there might be a rejection coming.

    7. @Aaron, about plowing, yeah, agree all the way. It's probably the most harmful anti-male thing ever taught by the community. Guys engaging in plowing are ruing it for everyone.

      I guess I misread your sentence here "if you've got the "roll the dice" mentality" - I assumed by "roll the dice" you meant doing anything involving taking a chance.

      I think minimal game does a good job of explaining the screening process (telling a woman's interest for deeper and deeper levels of intimacy quickly), as did 60 (too bad his marketing is scammy, coz his actual books are good).

      " Once you make your approach, you get a lot of feedback, and you know whether she's appreciative of your advances or not. At this point, all the vagueness disappears as well since there is a hell of a difference between a woman who isn't interested in you at all, and one who enjoys flirting. "

      Sure, but unless a man has read minimal game and understands screening/testing, it's still a guess how and what kind of advance she's open to. You get better with experience at guessing what the feedback means, but every new move you make has a "chance" "roll the dice" aspect to it.

      Literally the only "100% clear" signal you can get is "I'm open to talking to you" if she hasn't turned her back to you. That's it. That's the only 100% clear and unambiguous feedback. And since most men have not read minimal game (or 60/gll), they don't know how to test/check for this stuff.

      Now screening (as you, gll, 60 explain it), solves this issue well, by simply testing her openness to each new level of intimacy, and that's a very intelligent way of moving forward, too bad 99% of the male population isn't taught that.

      Basically, I think the problem we have in society was best summarized by "unknown" above... "the logical choice for a man is to ignore any female reistance below a certain threshold of forcefulness"

      The vast majority of the male population are lied and taught to only wait for super-duper obvious "OMG I AM SO IN LOVE with u and want you to take my number and ask me out right now!!!" type responses.

      Anyone who's had more than 1 girl per-decade can attest to the success ratio of such a high-treshold...

      I guess "plowing" is a new opposite extreme invented by internet virgins over-compensating for society's mainstream oprah promoted extreme "wait for super-duper-begging-you GO signs before ANY move of any kind"...

      As I said, you in minimal game explain an way to tell with certainty whether a chick is open to deeper and deeper levels of intimacy very quickly. Too bad most men will never learn it. Most men will be stuck with the extremes

      - "wait for 'omg make a move on me NOW john' signs from women"
      - plowing

      Both equally stupid, but for opposite reasons. Though I'd say plowing is obviosly a lot more damaging and makes the dating field worse for everyone.

  7. Direct rejection is easy for guys to interpret away as "I just lacked swag but I'll do better next time if I just get the right vibe". The human capacity for self-delusion is literally endless - putting limits on it would be a foolish thing to do. Roosh writes hundreds of posts proving Game does not work but self-deludes that it is proof of game. It's endless. Ugly loser guys go to Eastern Europe or Thailand and the Phillippines and get hit on by the lowest-rung poor local women, and are convinced they are suddenly attractive, cool dudes getting fantastic local women much better than Western women, and it's only the horribleness of Western women that makes them not see how cool these dudes are. It's endless.

    And a woman who sees her friend getting hit on and approached all the time but herself being constantly ignored or getting hit on by much worse men has it just as hard as men to self-delude, but manage to do it anyways. Women compare amongst themselves, you know.

    Bottom line; humans have infinite capacity to self-delude and explain away. If this ego-driven capacity is abetted by the culture, it can easily go nuclear.

    1. Direct rejection is easy for guys to interpret away as "I just lacked swag but I'll do better next time if I just get the right vibe"

      See my comment above linking to a tyler dyrden video saying that exact thing. He says game is real and that he's not playing the numbers game, but then he says he only gets 1 out of 30 chicks he approaches.

      He then says he didn't get the 29 because his "swag" wasn't on with the 29 chicks, but his swag kicked in on set 30, and that's why he got chick 30. He got her because of swag "not because she was chick 30".

      It's mind-blowing.

      So how does he explain that his ratio is no better than anti-puas, apocalypse-opener type experiments etc etc...

      He says swag is developed by talking to the 29 chicks. So he didn't really get REJECTED by the 29 chicks, oh no no no no... He was "building up his swag" by talking to those 29.

      Get that? I'm speechless at the stupidity of these game pushers. These guys are so obsessed with believing they can "create" or "build" attraction, they'll do mental olympics to explain way all the proof that attraction is static.

      He gets the same results as a nocebo experiment (walk up to 30 chicks asking 'wanna fuk' one will say yes too)... But he still believes that he made chick 30 attracted. He can't accept she was attracted before he said hello or that he just happens to be his type. He can't admit wasting 10 years developing an imaginary skill.

  8. @ Alek

    I critiqued your comment because I don't believe it to be true.

    Saying that I am "shilling" is just an excuse, because you don't have an answer to what I'm saying.

    I have no products, I have no blog...I'm just voicing my opinion.

    I speak of what I do and it is successful.

    I'm not a PUA if that's what you think. PUA's use techniques and speak in stupid PUA lingo.

    And I agree with Sleazy, you reap what you sow.

    If you do have a problem with my comment Alek, please let me know...and point out my error IN DETAIL.

    1. I spent 1 year of my life arguing with guys like you and dismantling every single one of these things, I've done it hundreds it of times in detail, pointing to studies, logic, etc etc, and obliterating every follow up argument. I had hundreds of people thank me for de-brainwashing them. My reward? I lost a year of my life.

      The PUA cult pumps out idiots like you faster than I can argue with each one one-on-one.

      I'm not going to spend 50 minutes each time another shill comes up and regurgitates the same crap, in fact, if I did, that would be proof I don't have a life.

      Feel free to go through the archive on here, every single point has been dissected and argued in detail, you obviously have the time excess to do it.

      Your arguments on attraction have been dissected hundreds of times on sedmyth and on here (sedmyth with links to studies defining attraction with interest). Not only have I dissected attraction and interest, I did PHD level research just for the sake of dismantling the misunderstandings over at sedmyth.

      Your excuses for female laziness are funny, coz you used both the feminist and the conservative excuse in ONE comment. Your gynocentricsm is nuclear.

      Read the book by johnny/arron for some responses, especially your claim about women being allpowerful and reading intuitively whether you are sexually powerful/experienced or not. Johnny and Aaaron dedicated an entire chapter to that myth in their book.

      Conservative biology angle response:
      -> Biology does not prevent women from being honest, nor is there a "hard to play" gene. Women in western culture purposefully and conciously play the plausible deniability game.

      You are somewhat strawmanning. Nobody is saying women need to start grabbing and dominating men. I was just talking about women PURPOSEFULLY sending mixed messages and PURPOSEFULLY hiding interest. There's no gene that prevents a woman to saying a direct and enthusiastic yes when asked out, nor is there a gene that prevents a woman from SMILING at a man from across the room.

      In fact, it's biologically NATURAL for FEMALES to initiate and guide courtship. It's ARTIFICIAL for women to hide their interest, stand in a corner pouting and saying "a man should just approach me without me having to stare at him with a smile". ITS NATURAL for females to give males CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS and direct GO signals.

      Feminist angle response:

      The "rape" and "smaller and weaker" bullshit has nothing to do with women's laziness and game-playing. What kind of retarded feminist logic is that? Is a rapist gonna go "she smiled at me, therefore I can now rape her", whereas if she frowned he wouldn't. Only feminists bring up such idiotic logic.

      This feminist logic says that women don't ask men out because they fear rape. HOW MUCH OF a NON-SEQUITOR IS THAT? If she picks up the phone, instead of waiting to be called, how does that increase her odds of being raped. What kind of ass-backwards logic is that? What's this idiotic feminist BS.

      You're posting the worst pua/feminist/conservative BS all in one. Like you manage to pick up the worst crap from all over, and put it one comment, and then put it in a preachy uneducated tone.

      I am actually academically qualified in this shit. I actually had to read papers defining the difference between attraction, different types of attraction, interest etc etc. And here you are, an illiterate hubris-filled mofo arguing with me, demanding I cater to your lifeless existence.

      Your answer can be found in Johnny's book, sedmyth, and the archive. I will not respond to your comments from this point on (for example I have a TV appearance later today). Some of us have lives, you know. I suggest getting one, you'll drop have the BS you're currently spouting if you left the house.

    2. I'm not a PUA if that's what you think. PUA's use techniques and speak in stupid PUA lingo.

      Your anti-scientific theory on attraction comes from PUAs. Not all PUAs are into techniques, that's just the 2003 version of PUA. You have "direct game" PUAs, "natural game" PUAs, and other new forms of marketing PUA.

      Science, aaron, gll etc etc believe that sexual (short-term) attraction is static. It's based on permanent characteristics, and the silly notion you can influence it by what you say or do, or how you act is completely unscientific as well as disproven by simple logic (nobody gets better success ratios than a nocebo experiment).

      Anyone promoting the idea of "attraction-creating", "attraction-boosting" etc etc etc in terms of sexual-short-term-attraction is selling snake-oil.

    3. I am really disappointed by your answer Alek Novy. Someone gives good criticism and you react like an agressive child calling him a KJ and talking to him as if he was some idiot. Puts your creditability down massively. Sounds immature.

    4. Oh good, I see you've come out to play.

      First of all your education is irrelevant. I don't care about the theory, it's what happens in the real world that counts.

      And for the record, perhaps unlike you...I've been told many times by women ALL OVER THE WORLD that I am good-looking. However I got laid very few times, in fact, many times I would speak to women who were interested in me and either conversation would die out or after a brief conversation they would make an excuse to leave.

      Did I become ugly all of a sudden?

      "...your claim about women being allpowerful and reading intuitively whether you are sexually powerful/experienced or not...

      How does this make women all-powerful?

      By your definition, men are all-powerful simply because they are able to recognize certain women walk more masculine than others, dress more masculine and speak more masculine.

      "Conservative biology angle response:
      -> Biology does not prevent women from being honest, nor is there a "hard to play" gene. Women in western culture purposefully and conciously play the plausible deniability game..."

      Does biology prevent women from being honest? No. However biology is responsible for chemical reactions...vis-à-vis attraction. Women show interest in SOME men, while with others they do not.

      "...I was just talking about women PURPOSEFULLY sending mixed messages and PURPOSEFULLY hiding interest.

      They are just unsure whether he is attractive...some girls are shy, what's your point?

      "...There's no gene that prevents a woman to saying a direct and enthusiastic yes when asked out, nor is there a gene that prevents a woman from SMILING at a man from across the room..."

      If a woman isn't enthusiastic about seeing you again then you have obviously done something to cause this. As for SOME women not smiling at a man from across the room, of course there isn't...MANY women do this. For all I know women who do not do this aren't INTERESTED.

      "...Is a rapist gonna go "she smiled at me, therefore I can now rape her", whereas if she frowned he wouldn't. Only feminists bring up such idiotic logic..."

      This is true. It is idiotic, HOWEVER I was referring to approaching, isolating men and initiating sex (i.e. all the things MEN do)...NOT merely smiling from across the room and INVITING a man.

      ...This feminist logic says that women don't ask men out because they fear rape. HOW MUCH OF a NON-SEQUITOR IS THAT? If she picks up the phone, instead of waiting to be called, how does that increase her odds of being raped. What kind of ass-backwards logic is that? What's this idiotic feminist BS...

      Typical. You're now putting words into my mouth...can you quote me on this?

      "...Some of us have lives, you know. I suggest getting one, you'll drop have the BS you're currently spouting if you left the house..."

      Are you getting emotional over an anonymous person on the Internet?

      Oh, and by the way, the "get out the house" BS is trite...

      You've categorically admitted you wait for women to show interest in you before you do anything, whilst AT THE SAME TIME admitting women (at least in the western world) hardly show any interest.

      You also suggest you have to wait for women to call you first, while also waiting for them to ask you out on a date and to initiate sex.

      Tell me Alek, how often have you gotten laid recently?

    5. "I am actually academically qualified in this shit...And here you are, an illiterate hubris-filled mofo arguing with me, demanding I cater to your lifeless existence."

      - Who is the shill here? This guy is pretending to be some guru that we must all bow down to and never question (even politely). Why do you allow this on your site Aaron?

    6. Why didn't you come out and say it in the first place!!!!

      I'm not S-E-L-L-I-N-G anything.

      Where's my link? Where's my mention of PUAs? Where's my promotion of the idea that if you JUST act a certain way you will get women?

      Everything that happens OUTSIDE, happens INSIDE FIRST.

      I never mention getting in shape, having friends or building a career because such things are obvious.

      And even more should NEVER do this to attract women anyway.

      There is a reason why men who do well with women have MANY attributes going for themselves.

      It's because they realise women are not to be taken so seriously.

      A man isn't defined by whether he gets pussy, a man just gets pussy anyway.

      Many men want pussy because they want to be men.

      Women are only attracted to men.

      Therefore focus on being a man and you will understand pussy is rather mediocre , which paradoxically allows you to get more of it, if you chose to.

      "...the silly notion you can influence it by what you say or do, or how you act is completely unscientific...

      Then why do you suggest building a social circle and working out? Why dress sharply? Why even have a life?

      Am I going to get laid with a certain woman if I say she stinks and needs to take a bath?

      "...Anyone promoting the idea of "attraction-creating", "attraction-boosting" etc etc etc in terms of sexual-short-term-attraction is selling snake-oil..."

      The fact remains that certain men are more attractive to women than others, if you emulate certain behaviors (which does include being independent, working out and many, many other small seemingly insignificant things), some of which TAKE TIME...then you will have similar results.

      Are you then not "creating attraction"? Are you then not "boosting attraction"?

      You were barely attractive before, now you are MORE attractive. Unless it fell from the sky, it came from YOU.

    7. You do realize I've had this exact conversation 500 times before? After I educate the poster in question by educating them on every single point, one by one, they don't thank me, they just disappear.

      Again, I asked you to go through archive and sedmyth, because you have literally not written a SINGLE new point, in fact I am experiencing Deja Vu. We've had these debates HUNDREDS of times with people who are clones of you.

      Shorter answer:

      You have reading comprehension issues. Instead of teaching you how to read by having to write 1 page reply to every point you made...

      I'll direct you to google scholar and have you study the difference between "short-term" attraction and "long-term attraction", then read my comment again, this time with a higher level of education.

      Also read the about 400 pages of explanations on sedmyth I've given and replies about attraction, short-term mating, long-term mating, traits assess in short-term, in long-term. The difference between attraction and interest etc etc.

      Again, I've had this debate 500 times before, and it always ends with the person being re-educated. If I had the time/motivation to educate and clarify it for each new person making the exact same points, I'd never leave the house.


      You have literally not brought up not a single new argument, or point that has not already been replied to, clarified and answered hundreds of times before, not your follow ups, nor even the follow ups to the follow ups.

      I know you think you're original, but you're just a brainwashed clone. You literally are deja vu 548. Go read the archives.

  9. Sleazy, I like your blog and your debunking and it's right to point out the idiotism of people who dont wanna change/improve their life and fundamentals when wanna hang out with above average attractive men or women.

    But on the other side saying things like: "Who can these unattractive people think I'd lke to hang out or even have sex with them?" is pure arrogance and a sign of overcompensating behavior or a "human god like" complex which isn't very attractive and I wouldnt hang out with girls/guys who think like that about others.

    These people often think they are the top of everything and have some kinda "fascistic" attitude as being part of some master race. I know such high society fuckers and could puke about and am very happy not to have such "friends".

    So nobody has to get permission from others to talk to them. And when dont like being approached by some people its possible to reject them in a respectful manner aa long as they arent also arrogant-overcompensating idiots.

    And some girls/men feel annoyed when being approached by people they dont like? So why are they in these venues? I mean I know what you are talking about. Drunk people hit on others with idiotic lines and all that and yes it's ok to reject them in a respectful way but why should anyway get permission first?

    Some nights I just approach whem getting signals, other nights I just socialize with everyone a little and others I "roll the dice" aggressive and dont give a fuck what they think. Why should I or everyone? Not my job to think about what they think. If it doesnt fit she isnt the right one. And after a while you get a feeling about your dating market value (this also depends on your niche/demographic situation and much guys need much eexperience to see they even undervalue themselves. Our self-images arent always realistic from the beginning when not having enougj references. And this is more common than hubris by PUA idiots)

    Some advices arent very useful here and since I know you are a fan of Schopenhauer this explains much of your kinda negative and rigid advice - which tells us much truths but in a dark-white way - where people have to be ashamed for who they are because either they are elite people or some where these people look down to and have to ask polite to get their attention.

    Fuck this fascist philosophy.

    1. Let's not confuse too many issues here. There is a difference between hanging out and wanting to have sex with someone. For the latter, the barrier is quite a bit higher. Once phrased like that, the presumed arrogance disappears as well since nobody owes you a shag just because you feel like it. Further, you can't demand from anybody that he or she becomes your friend. Again, this is not so much a matter of arrogance but of common sense.

      Also, sadly, many men don't quite realize when the woman isn't interested, after they've made the approach. This refers back to a post Alek Novy has made above, and which I'll elaborate on in my next post.

    2. Aaron, for further reference, I have stumbled upon this video series of a dating show circa 2002.
      Two male and three female contestants.
      One of the male contestants is a good looking albeit a little shy fella, his name is Chris (yup, that Chris). The other male contestant is not Chris.
      One of the contestants attracts all the girls, the other doesn't. The one who doesn't is adamant on more than one occasion that he's god's greatest gift to women. Demonstrating your, Aaron's, point on male hubris perfectly.

  10. Ok, if it comes to idiots which dont get it and cant distingush between shyness and not being interested I agree and max. after 10 minutes and some screening (touch, see if she's open etc) like Chris from GLL and even Mark Manson says and I experienced for myself, you know if it's "on" or not. Main problem is, much men cannot distingush between (potential) sexual interest and her being polite.

  11. Alek, your perspective reminds me of some newer stuff Mark Manson wrote about the possibility for women to make the first move to cut all the ambigous bullshit ( and to end "How can I make her attracted" to a screening mentality (

    1. I wish Mark Manson luck finding women who throw themselves at him. Someone should remind him that there are good reasons why chicks in Thailand go after white foreigners...

    2. Girls who are not prostitute in Thailand actually never make first move. The girls who make first move are prostitutes or low class women who cannot get any successful Thai men. These girls want foreigners and settle for any foreigner who are willing to take them.

      "Thai women are conservative by nature. This is how a normal Thai girl approaches a guy she’s interested in. Her friend or acquaintance will approach man and say that someone’s really interested and see if he is available. Man ask some questions and the friend will never reveal who it is until he/she knows that it’s a green light. If man says he has girlfriend he will never find out who this girl is. Normal Thai girls are very conservative when it comes to courtship and the man really has to be the aggressor. If the woman is the aggressor, then she’s really not the type of woman that successful Thai men would be interested in."

      Foreigners get only low class Thai girls like mentioned in comments below.

  12. This is my problem with PUA Hate. They focus on their rage over being "scammed" by PUA goo-roos because they didn't get laid like they thought they would, but they come across horribly as people. They have a point about the emptiness of pickup, but most of them don't seem like they've ever really tried to improve their own lot or deal with their victim complexes.

    1. I was browsing PUA Hate earlier and there was a photo of an "ugly" girl a guru had apparently slept with, she wasn't ugly at all yet the majority of posters thought she was. I bet if I met one of their average regular posters in real life they would be shy and lack any confidence to express themselves at all let alone how they do on an anonymous internet forum.

    2. What's the link to the thread on PUAHATE?

  13. Sleazy, as I remember, Manson already wrote an article about Thailand and why this happen.

    1. So, where in the world is he then supposed to find women who make the first move then? I'm sure George Clooney gets hit on a lot, but we're not talking about that caliber of guy here.

  14. He never said he wants girls hitting on him. His "method" is to approach every girl you are interested in, screen them (5 - 10 minutes) and if both of you doen't feel it, move on. But when, build an emotional connection with her and escalate. So rejection is seen as a filter process, like he says here:

    1. This sounds like complete bullshit to me, and I'll discuss this in more detail soon. But here's some food for thought: you can't properly "screen" women without having had sex with them since they all put up a front.

  15. @Haselnuss. Yep, cool vids. The thing is, Chris, even he's more shy here, is more relaxed and better in shape than the other guy. AND he's not trying to impress the girls. He's not needy and this is more attractive than trying to perform how cool you think you are.

    1. You can see in the vids how girls react to a good looking buff guy. They are willing to escalate very fast with the good looking dude - albeit with a varying degree between the girls -, they are closer to him, leaning into him, finding shit he says funny etc. I knew the ending, who picks whom, by watching their body language long before the video was over.
      This is the educational part of the video. If you want to know, if a girl is into you or not, watch the video until you see the difference between the girls' reaction to Chris and Not:Chris. And the body language thingy starts right after Chris meets the girls.

      If you think Chris attracts these Girls because he was "cool" (No, he wasn't.) or because he was indifferent (No, he wasn't) you're missing the point by MILES.
      The women are attracted to him despite his shyness or lack of life (Not knowing what to say, when they ask if he has anything else to do besides lifting weights.). For f**** sake he STUTTERS in the video.

  16. "Science, aaron, gll etc etc believe that sexual (short-term) attraction is static. It's based on permanent characteristics, and the silly notion you can influence it by what you say or do, or how you act is completely unscientific as well as disproven by simple logic (nobody gets better success ratios than a nocebo experiment)."
    I don't think that static is a good word.

    It has been scientifically proven that behavioral cues influence woman's sexual evaluation mechanism. Behavior can be modified and it definitely isn't permanent nor static.

    1. NOTE: ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN COVERED, ARGUED, DEBATED ad nauseaum hundreds of times before. I POLITELY ask you all to refer to the archive and sedmyth, we can't answer every new clone coming in saying the exact same PUA marketing stuff in depth.

      Short reply

      -"woman's sexual evaluation mechanism"

      That's a PUA marketing term. It doesn't exist in any scientific literature.

      The moment you see a term that DOESNT EXIST (and can't be found by google scholar in ANY literature) you know you're dealing with pseudocscience (i.e illiterate misinterpreting tabloid summaries of studies)

      - "It has been scientifically proven that behavioral cues influence woman's ..."

      1) Of course behavior influences OUTCOMES. Nobody claims different. Approach a woman saying "hey s*ut, I wanna impregnate u tonight" vs. approach in a socially normal way, of course the latter has a higher chance of getting her.

      But the ATTRACTION she feels on the inside has NOT changed.

      The SCAM about game is the claim that you can go into a bar, see a woman who has you in her "never" category, walk up to her, and just by TALKING, WALKING, ACTING or THINKING differently IN THAT ONE INTERACTION, you will "make her" put you into the "YES" category


      IF THIS IS POSSIBLE, why won't ANYONE, not a SINGLE guru anywhere accept the challenge? The challenge is simple... prove you can get a HIGHER RATIO than a nocebo. Simple.

      - "It has been scientifically proven that behavioral cues influence woman's sexual evaluation mechanism."

      2) This is where LONG-TERM attraction, "romantic interest" comes on. The science is very clear that in LONG-TERM mating women consider and take into account PERSONALITY TRAITS. THIS IS TRUE

      However, the science is also clear that THE SHORTER TERM the mating, the LESS women care about personality traits. In other words, if a chick bangs someone in the club bathroom, or makes out with you after 5 minutes on the beach, the science is very VERY clear that THIS has NOTHING to do with "easily modifiable traits".

      The basic theory is that in the long-term women can get to know you, and they can know who you are, and assess if these traits are for real - which is why women consider modifiable terms over the long-run, but only look to "impossible to fake" traits in the short-term.

      In fact IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS that women have learned to IGNORE "behavioural cues" in short-term mating PRECISELY because they can be FAKED.

      DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? Yes, having personality trait x can make a woman more likely to see you as a future boyfriend. But she's not going to bang a guy in a bar, merely because he delivered a "cue" that he might have that trait.

      MAKE SENSE? PUA ignoramouses MISINTERPRET and purposefully distort studies that speak about one thing, and project it onto another.

      For example, if a woman is looking for a long-term partner, of course she'll look to cues toward persanility traits she wants in a long-term partner, and she'll use those cues to assess whether to give you a chance at courting her (in other words cues are good enough to get you a first date). But you can't create SHORT-TERM, same-night, ACUTE changes in SEXUAL short-term attraction by "using cues". THIS IS A COMPLETE MARKETING SCAM, easily passed off since most people are completely uneducated in the field...

    2. p.s.

      Also look up previous debates in sedmyth and archives here on attraction vs. interest... You CAN increase interest (that's different). For example a horny chick, who's feeling a medium level of sexual attraction toward you, can be swayed to come bang you tonight if she finds out something about you (say you're famous or lead a club her friend is a fan of). She might just go bang you for ego gratification purposes.

      Or say you walk into a club, a chick (seemingly) doesn't notice you exist, then your super hot model 10 female friend comes up and hugs you and hangs off of you. Now the chick from across the room who previously ignored you, is now staring at you and bumping into you...

      Both of those are examples of CHANGING INTEREST (desire to act on pre-existing attraction). The trouble with that is you DO NOT HAVE TELEPATHY. You don't know what increases which chick's interest on which night.

      There are no "universal cues" that "flip 'attraction ON' switches" on women on an ACUTE real-time short-term basis. This is the part that's a scam. Again for deeper (100x longer and more detailed) explanations refer to archive.

    3. Is the SeductionMyth website coming back?

    4. @Alek Novy

      Thanks for taking the time to write such an elaborate answer.

      I've also read your "What 'game' is and isn't" post and I mostly agree with your perspective.

      I'd like to ask you though about your opinion whether certain behavioral cues can positively influence short-term attraction in a direct way(not by increasing interest) given those cues are hard to fake?

      It is safe to assume that short-term attraction process "looks" for signals that indicate genetic quality. This quality can manifest itself in different ways. One way can be looks but other way can also be high status in social hierarchy.

      Since phylogenetically older structures of the human brain are the 'center' of sexual attraction it is likely that cognitively knowing that man has high social status won't have high impact on attraction process. Instead woman looks for behavioral cues in others to see whether they treat you as high status.

      If this is true then it is safe to assume that woman will also look for cues in your own behavior to see how you respond to the environment. She may or may not also challenge you in some way to see how you will respond. (Yeah shit-tests, and no I'm not a shill :)).

      To shortly reiterate my question: do you believe that hard-to-fake behavioral cues indicating high status in the social hierarchy can have direct impact on short-term sexual attraction in females?

    5. I think we're getting somewhere Alek.

      "...The SCAM about game is the claim that you can go into a bar, see a woman who has you in her "never" category, walk up to her, and just by TALKING, WALKING, ACTING or THINKING differently IN THAT ONE INTERACTION, you will "make her" put you into the "YES" category...".

      If that's what they teach then it is false.

      Question. Do you think women's decisions are binary?

      Others points in question are, what puts a man in a woman's "never" category and does the "never" category differ from woman to woman.

      Notice how a man who is dressed sloppily, is unkempt, is out of shape and or is socially inept ALMOST ALWAYS has little to no experience with women...let alone attractive women?

      The question is are handsome men who dress sharp, groom, work out and have quality friends, confident? Or are CONFIDENT MEN handsome, etc, etc?

      "...However, the science is also clear that THE SHORTER TERM the mating, the LESS women care about personality traits. In other words, if a chick bangs someone in the club bathroom, or makes out with you after 5 minutes on the beach, the science is very VERY clear that THIS has NOTHING to do with "easily modifiable traits"...

      Of course, BUT the woman needs cues to know if the man is skilled sexually...

      ALSO you are introducing other factors...she could heavily intoxicated, or desperate...

      "...easily modifiable traits..." do NOT include self belief, self esteem, experience, independence and the ability to flirt...

      By the way "Attraction" and being "Attractive" are ALSO NOT the same. Being "Attractive" causes interest.

      Use your browsers find function I mentioned earlier regarding being handsome and I quote...

      "...You CAN still have sex with her, but you CANNOT make her attracted to you...

      This was an error on my part...I meant CANNOT create ATTRACTION.

      becoming "Attracted" and causing "Attraction" are TWO SEPARATE things.

      "...For example a horny chick, who's feeling a medium level of sexual attraction toward you, can be swayed to come bang you tonight if she finds out something about you (say you're famous or lead a club her friend is a fan of)...

      Yeah but being "...(famous or lead a club her friend is a fan of)..." is attractive.

      It does not cause "Attraction". Attraction is a two-way street...

      Also, as I mentioned physical sex ALONE is is ROBOTIC and fuels only ego, it is devoid of emotion...

      This is why Aaron Sleazy wrote the previous article about sex being the greatest thing in the world as a myth.

      This is sex WITHOUT foreplay/flirting/sexual intercourse/teasing/...whatever you want to call it.

    6. Only aspie nerds use ALL CAPS to SHOUT at their INTENDED AUDIENCE because what they are saying is SO IMPORTANT!!! DON'T YOU SEE???!!!!!

      Confident men know what they are saying has merit in itself, and let the chips fall where they may. Let people come to their own conclusions.

      SHOUTING on the internet is considered rude, and displays a lack of social calibration.

  17. I think that the extreme focus on self-esteem in children that has been prevalent for the past 10-20 years is to blame. Children are practically worshiped by their parents (who then pressure teachers to do the same). They grow up believing that they are the top of the top, and their shortcomings are either ignored or severely downplayed, all in the name of "self-esteem." As a result, children grow up extremely entitled and lazy since they have always been told they are "winners" and have never experienced the benefits of working hard to achieve your goals.

  18. Sry but this is BS. Much people suffer from lack of self esteem. And why should I achieve something to be okay and loved? Self acceptance should always be unconditional. Lack of unconditional selfacceptance is core of neediness and manipulative behavior. A false sense of entitlement comes from lack of self esteem and is part of overcompensation. Realistic self perception is only possible when not feeling ashamed for who you are and see critic as a possibility to change and improve behavior. What you talk is conservative right wing BS and will get tthe opposite in childen.

    1. If people did not accept who they were, they would seek to change themselves.

      It is because people DO accept who they are, that they do not change, and expect the world to see them the same way they see themselves.

  19. On the other side, some parents give their kids the feeling of being better than other children and a wrong god like perception about themselves

    This can also lead to a wrong sense of entitlement and lack of real self worth when being in situations where their self images dont fit with the actual experience.

    Right way is to give them a feeling of unconditional love and acceptance but help them to get realistic views about things they need to achieve to fullfill their needs.

    This will help their kids to develop a friend like relationship to themselves. And I think a good friend likes you unconditional but also tries to give objective feedback and will tell you which things you need to fullfill your needs. And yep this leads to realism without shame, wrong entitlement or feelings of inferiority.

  20. "how long it would take to save up money for another flight to Thailand."

    Prostitutes are prostitutes everywhere and foreigners in Thailand are normally manosphere types who get laid by low class prostitutes only.

    Beautiful non prostitutes in Thailand are very difficult

    "In Thailand, bride price is common in both Thai-Thai and Thai-foreign marriages. The bride price may range from nothing, if the woman is divorced, has a child fathered by another man, or is widely known to have had premarital relations with men; upwards to tens of millions of Thai baht (US$300,000) for a woman of high social standing, a beauty queen, or a highly educated woman."

    So when you ask what type of Thai girl your average foreigner has it's with kids, divorced and generally the type that successful Thai man would not be willing to take.

    It's funny that you wrote about Russia and Roosh while making similiar assumption about Thailands easiness. It's easy to buy prostitute but where isn't it easy?

    "There’s a well-kept secret in Thailand that every Thai person seems to know but no farang does (or maybe can’t grasp what it means). It boggles my mind actually because you can’t get three Thai people to agree on anything but nearly everyone agrees on this, both men and women. That farang men only date ugly Thai women." Written by Thai, born in the USA

    1. "Something interesting that I’ve noticed is that it’s almost pointless to be a good-looking farang guy in Thailand. Because you’re going to have access to the same pool of women as that fat, hairy, smelly, 55 year old European guy sitting at the end of the bar.

      You’re not going to have access to the same type of women that quality Thai men get. In Europe you see a good looking guy and you expect him to be with an attractive woman. And he almost always is.

      But in Thailand, you see a good-looking farang guy and his GF will be the same Isaan-type woman that all the other farang guys run around with. There’s a young farang guy who is my friend and got the classic GQ look. I mean this guy would be a serious ladies-man back in the Europe. Confident guy too. Yet, his girlfriend is just oh-so-typical Isaan-type. And another in his late 20’s, better than average looking, making solid money, and his new wife has two kids (not his)." from Stickman's site also.

      I am actually older guy from Norway and and go to Thailand as sex-tourist for this reason. I can get same quality girls that younger model looking men. I probably even spend less money than better looking younger guys because I know how to bargain and where to shop.

      Most women expect getting some benefits from money no matter where they stay USA/Europe/Asia. In Thailand I can buy prostitutes with as cheap as 10 dollars thought they are not good quality by Thai standards but neither are those who younger foreigners get even with temporary job and high salary.

      I have been going to Thailand for more than 20 years and I have never seen best quality Thai girl with farang. That's why those Thai girls that you see in Europe/USA are ugly and low-class because nobody who is successful in Thai is going to date foreigners for various reasons.

      For prostitutes places like Pattaya is still great destination. And many upgrade their prostitutes to wife in Europe or take them as serious girlfriends.

  21. White guys who go to Thailand for girls are bottom of the bucket, and they get bottom of the bucket Thai women - what could be more natural? I don't see why this is a problem, most farang (all?) know this very well, contrary to what that Thai dude thinks, and don't care - they know they are bottom feeders, and don't give a shit.

    Almost every white guy in Thailand with a Thai is either obviously bottom of the bucket himself (the vaaast majority) or a decent looking guy with a serious personality flaw or self-confidence issue.

    It boggles my mind that the Thai guy you quoted above actually thinks that normal, cool, good looking white dues are going to Thailand to hook up. You can't get three normal farangs in a room without the secret coming out about what everyone knows - nearly every farang hooking up with Thai chics is either hideous or seriously screwed up in a not immediately obvious way. Does this dude actually think NORMAL white dude's are hooking up with his country's chics? He's getting the Rooshe's!

    But the phenom of GQ level white dudes hooking up with fuglies is actualy MUCH more common in the West - its relatively rare in Thailand, actually. In the West guys with personality issues or serious, deep self-confidence issues commonly hook up with fatties and fuglies. I see it all the time.

    As for Thailand, it's not unique. In nearly all countries attractive local women are harder for foreigners to get, EVEN America or England or France. Throw race-difference into the mixture and you have some serious barriers!

    That being said, I can say I almost NEVER saw a farang with a truly attractive girl in Thailand, while I would SOMETIMES see a white dude with some truly attractive girl in Singapore, Hong Kong, China, and other Asian countries. Thailand is unique in getting just the worst white dudes, and has fewer pretty women then the rest of East Asia, which are factors that might explain that. In addition, Thai culture is unintellectual and uncrious, while East Asian countries are much less so (tho more so than the West). Thais are just less compatible with Western culture than East Asians.

  22. Random idea:

    When women don't think (consciously or otherwise) that they have anything to offer but their looks/sex, then they see nothing wrong with actin flakey and sending mixed signals, because that filters all guys who aren't physically attracted above some threshold. In other words, by being shitty to a certain degree, a woman filters out all men who don't think she's sexy enough to merit dealing with that shittiness.

    Thing is, of course, the men actually do care about female personality, so shitty female behavior filters out men who find her perfectly physically attractive but don't want to get in a relationship with a woman who (seems to) be a big flake.

    This isn't meant to be some all encompassing theorem, but I think it's a piece of the puzzle. It certainly represents where I'm at as a guy now that I've racked up thirty odd notches, found it all wanting, and begun seeking a relationship in earnest. For example, this past week the cute mid-twenties receptionist at my office asked ME for MY number and said we should "hang out sometime." I texted her later and proposed a time, she said she'd like to but wasn't sure if it worked with her schedule and that she'd text me the next day.

    Well she never did text back, and neither have I. I am 100% certain she's just playing hard to get or whatever, I've been there, done that, seen it before... But I just don't want to deal with it. It seems like my prize for pursuing this chick consists of sex (which, as discussed previously, is grossly overrated in our pop-culture vacuum) and maybe a relationship with the kind of girl who will subject you to flakey bullshit.

    Amusingly enough, I ended up picking up another girl from a bar a couple days later and banging her. This chick didn't really do any of that mixed signal bs, but this is a go-nowhere for a relationship. I hate to say it, she's nice enough, but she's in her thirties, which is a dealbreaker for me, regardless of how physically attractive she is. And these two side by side examples seem to be what I mostly encounter in the wild: girls who seem like they have relationship potential but act shitty, or girls who don't have relationship potential but act decent.

    (This could all be my fault, of course, maybe I'm running in the wrong circles or have blinders on for decent women, or maybe it's something else, so take this all with a grain of salt, but still...)

    What really strikes me is that the former type of woman eventually turns into the latter type of woman. Being shitty is not in a woman's long term interest, it drives away relationship oriented men with options and leaves only men who just want to screw or relationship oriented men without (real or perceived) options who will therefore tolerate her shittiness. This can't be what women really want, is it? And it seems to be increasingly common, and honestly as I type that it looks like understatement, in my experience its the norm. In manhattan where I live the single chicks all seem to be either young and attractive and flakey or old and attractive and decent (not many ugs in the city, praise the Lord for small mercies). What the fuck is going on here?

    That's where my random idea comes from. Maybe women really just don't realize that their personality matters a lot to relationship oriented men with options, so they spend their youth guarding their sexiness with shitty behavior, and then when they get older they "give up" to a degree since the men just don't tolerate her shit the way they used to.

    This seems to hold explanatory power, although I'm not sure how to falsify it, and it begs the question of why women would think this way to begin with. What do you guys think?


    1. Great comment! Regarding your last point, I think that many women neglect their personality and develop a bitchy attitude in their childhood and youth because their thinking is oriented more towards the short-term. This applies especially to more attractive girls. Since they experience that there is always some dude lusting after them, they may easily make the (wrong) conclusion that this would go on forever. But as you've said, as "bitches" grow older, they'll realize that they may have to change their personality to actually keep a guy, or end up like some of their older girlfriends.

  23. Sounds plausible... most western women lead unexamined lives that are not conducive to their long term happiness. They don't think logically about how to get what they want, and the cultural norms don't encourage good outcomes for them. The higher up in class and education you go, the more likely they are to logically think about how to actually get what would lead to a harmonious situation for them. But it usually takes them until their 30's....

  24. What you write sounds correct shiva. I'll add that American men in particular suffer from a sort of class-obliviousness -- a result of the culture, where everyone pretends to be "middle class," whatever that means these days. So the point you make about women of higher class/education being less likely to act counter to their long term interests (i.e. flake on guys they legitimately like) is the kind of thing that should be obvious, but isn't.

    Perhaps that's part of why PUA scamming has been so American-centric; my impression is that Europeans are far less delusional about class implications, Sleazy even mentions them explicitly in his book (which was a wake up call for me, I had never considered class before).

    I will add that, in addition to getting creamed economically, the caliber of female peers makes this an especially bad time to be a middle-class (or lower) male. Not that it's ever particularly enjoyable. But now that our culture has endorsed the full liberation of our "animal spirits," it is only in the upper-middle-class and above where your mating prospects aren't likely to be hurt by, say, a lack of tattoos.

    Ghetto blacks are notorious for penalizing members of their community for trying to better themselves by aspiring to upper class behavior. The term for it is "acting white." This malady started shortly after the cultural revolution, and was for the longest time considered a purely black phenomenon. But today, I wonder if we are seeing a cross-racial animosity to "acting classy." If so, the implications for society are not good.

    I suppose the take-home point of the preceding (and it has to have a take home point to spare it from charges of mental masturbation) is that a man who is more interested in matrimony with a quality woman should bust his butt to make it into the upper middle class, and then focus his dating efforts on the women there.


  25. I am a short, fat, ugly guy. Yes, I can lose a few pounds, but how am I supposed to work on myself to improve on short, and ugly?
    I can't make myself taller.
    And, you can't fix ugly.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.